Launch News SpaceX Falcon 9 F3 COTS2+ Updates

[Codz]

I'd like to have a "metric butt-ton of money" to start with...

Wouldn't we all...:lol:

 

[orb]

Florida Today: After valve replacement, Falcon 9 on track for Tuesday launch:

SpaceX technicians have replaced a faulty Falcon 9 rocket engine valve and remain on track for a 3:44 a.m. blastoff from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, a spokeswoman said today.

“They replaced the valve last night and things are looking good,” said Kirstin Grantham.

The weather forecast has improved slightly, from a 60 percent to 70 percent chance of favorable conditions during the near-instantaneous launch window. Read the official forecast here: http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070716-028.pdf.

{...}

 

[Cras]

Don't compare a US president with some CEO.

You know what the difference is between JFK and Elon Musk? Other than one is a corpse. Elon Musk actually believes in space, and is not just using it for political games.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming large. Nothing wrong trying to build support for that vision. Nothing wrong with failing while you try to swing for the fences.

And calling SpaceX's launch vehicle run of the mill is disingenuous. The concepts for it being cheap, re-usable, and reliable is not to be brushed off lightly.

 

[T.Neo]

I wonder if static fire tests are such a good idea. Especially if you're not planning to launch within a short time. Leaving enough time for corrosion to do it's work can lead to all sorts of trouble. I know the LM ascent engine almost tore itself up when running, and the actual flight hardware could never be tested.

The Merlin engine was intended for reusability, so it probably has a good deal of service runtime in it. It should be able to withstand the testing regime.

A run-of-the-mill launch vehicle

Falcon 9 can be called a lot of things, but run-of-the-mill is certainly not one of them. Especially not considering the development pricetag.

Also: why are we all arguing about Elon Musk? Over 1000 people work at SpaceX, and how well Falcon/Dragon performs is what is important, not rhetoric from Musk or anyone else, for that matter.

 

[Codz]

You know what the difference is between JFK and Elon Musk? Other than one is a corpse. Elon Musk actually believes in space, and is not just using it for political games.

There is nothing wrong with dreaming large. Nothing wrong trying to build support for that vision. Nothing wrong with failing while you try to swing for the fences.

And calling SpaceX's launch vehicle run of the mill is disingenuous. The concepts for it being cheap, re-usable, and reliable is not to be brushed off lightly.

It has not been proven to be any of those things thus far. Elon Musk is using space to make money. He may genuinely care about space, but make no mistake, SpaceX isn't a charity.

 

[N_Molson]

Anyway I wish them good luck for Tuesday. Too bad I won't be able to watch the launch (but since I jinxed the last one, maybe its better like that :lol.

Its just the cult of ultraliberalism that causes me a problem (oh its a CEO then he will do everything much more efficiently and faster and better than a state agency... Golden boys caused our world enough trouble like that those last years I think...)

 

[anemazoso]

:hesaid:

In the current state of things, SpaceX is hardly more than a NASA sub-agency. It has currently no way to make profits. It will take a lot of manned flights to the ISS for the company to actually pay back the quite enormous investments.

Actually that is incorrect. SpaceX has $4 billion worth of backlog contracts. 2/3 of which comes from comercial. Plus at the final FRR press briefing Shotwell said hey have a couple more contracts they just signed but havent announced yet. So far NASA has only paid they $390 mill. Total SpaceX expendatures to date have been $1.2 billion. All of this info was in the briefing as previously mentioned.

 

[N_Molson]

SpaceX has $4 billion worth of backlog contracts

Who paid those contracts ? The US governement ?

 

[anemazoso]

Who paid those contracts ? The US governement ?

The US government represents $1.2 billion of that $4 billion for the CRS launches so $3.8 billion are from non-US government customers. I was wrong. Its more than 2/3. Closer to 1/4.

 

[N_Molson]

Could you quote the main "non-US governement customers" ? I'm just curious...

 

[garyw]

Space Shuttle launch scrub, internet reaction:

Darn. I hope I'll be able to watch the launch on the rescheduled date!

Do you want me to do a search of here and NSF for peoples reactions to the GCUP or ECO issues that NASA had on a few flights? Reactions like this for example?

 

[FADEC]

Space Shuttle launch scrub, internet reaction:

Darn. I hope I'll be able to watch the launch on the rescheduled date!

Falcon 9 launch scrub, internet reaction:

SpaceX is a bunch of incompetant noobs! 7 months and now a scrub? Elon Musk's pie in the sky ideas are even more absurd after this failure.

:dry:

The difference is the claims of Elon Musk. He tells people that "his" Falcon 9 rockets can be launched a few times each month to generate money for commercial flights to the Moon and even to Mars within 10 years. But the current processes shows that all this talk is nothing more than PR.

SpaceX dashes against the same things as NASA did with its complex Space Shuttles (aborts due to a valve etc.). At this rate they can be happy to get a launch record of 10 within the next 10 years and not 50 launches per year. SpaceX makes only one difference to NASA: they do it less expensive.

Just imagine how long it might take to let Dragon fly manned. Maybe it won't even happen...

 

[garyw]

I'd say they are right on schedule. NASA planned to launch STS-1 in 1978 and it got pushed back and back and back..... Space-X have got two launch vehicles, both flown and both ready to go. They understand the issue that caused the abort - a real abort due to a part.

This proves that the system has matured since the first couple of disastrous launches.

 

[FADEC]

I'd say they are right on schedule. NASA planned to launch STS-1 in 1978 and it got pushed back and back and back..... Space-X have got two launch vehicles, both flown and both ready to go. They understand the issue that caused the abort - a real abort due to a part.

This proves that the system has matured since the first couple of disastrous launches.

While SpaceX, or rather Elon Musk, does promise the same thing as NASA did with its Shuttles in the 1970s: the impossible. I think this is what makes people sad.

 

[anemazoso]

Could you quote the main "non-US governement customers" ? I'm just curious...

ORBCOMM - Multiple Flights 2012-2014 Multiple Cape Canavera MDA Corp. (Canada) 2012 Falcon 9 Vandenberg NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 1 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 2 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera Falcon Heavy Demo Flight 2012 Falcon Heavy Vandenberg SES (Europe) 2013 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera Thaicom (Thailand) 2013 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 3 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 4 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NSPO (Taiwan) 2013 Falcon 9 Vandenberg AsiaSat 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera AsiaSat 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 5 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 6 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 7 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera Space Systems/Loral 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera CONAE (Argentina) 2014 Falcon 9 Vandenberg DragonLab Mission 1 2014 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera Asia Broadcast Satellite/Satmex 2014 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera Spacecom (Israel) 2015 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 8 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 9 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 10 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera Bigelow Aerospace 2015 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera DragonLab Mission 2 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera SES (Europe) 2015 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera CONAE (Argentina) 2015 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 1 2015 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 2 2015 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 3 2015 Falcon 9 Vandenberg NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 11 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 12 2015 F9/Dragon Cape Canavera Asia Broadcast Satellite/Satmex 2015 Falcon 9 Cape Canavera Iridium – Flight 4 2016 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 5 2016 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 6 2016 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 7 2017 Falcon 9 Vandenberg Iridium – Flight 8 2017 Falcon 9 Vandenberg

Thats 38 launchs of the F9 booked. - 12 of them as RCS flights thats 27 non US gov launches booked.

 

[IronRain]

Not sure if this is already posted here (it's hard to keep track of the news and negative reactions)

Simulations show launch ok with bad valve. Still, better to stop & fix. Recalling rockets after launch is not an option.

 

[Urwumpe]

Recalling rockets after launch? The STS was capable of doing that. :thumbsdown:

 

[Donamy]

Recalling rockets after launch? The STS was capable of doing that. :thumbsdown:

But not recommended. :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

But not recommended. :thumbup:

Only Mike Mullane thinks that RTLS is an unnatural act of physics.

OK, the 5g alpha recovery is maybe nothing for weak stomachs. :lol:

 

[Jarvitä]

Recalling rockets after launch? The STS was capable of doing that. :thumbsdown:

So capable NASA didn't dare test the "capability", sure.